Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Arizona Vs. Hicks

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 03, 1987

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

69 entries 4 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Brignoni-ponce US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1975
  2. United States Vs. Place US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1983
  3. United States Vs. Roberts US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1850
  4. United States Vs. Cortez US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1981
  5. U.S. 321 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. Hicks
    Search
  6. U.S. 321 (1987) Arizona v. Hicks
    Search
  7. the evidence that had been seized, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Relying upon a statement in Mincey v. Arizona
    Search
  8. U. S. 333 . Page 480 U. S. 323 JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. In Coolidge v. New
    Search
  9. the serial numbers, however, as an additional search, unrelated to that exigency. Relying upon a statement in Mincey v. Arizona
    Search
  10. doctrine of Coolidge v. New
    Search
  11. interest in either the serial numbers or the equipment, and therefore did not amount to a seizure. See Maryland v. Macon
    Search
  12. search, because it would have produced no additional invasion of respondent's privacy interest. See Illinois v. Andreas
    Search
  13. where action is taken for the purpose justifying the entry, invocation of the doctrine is superfluous. Mincey v. Arizona
    Search
  14. Coolidge v. New
    Search
  15. doctrine. Dicta in Payton v. New
    Search
  16. U. S. 587 (1980), suggested that the standard of probable cause must be met, but our later opinions in Texas v. Brown
    Search
  17. authority to make warrantless seizures in public places of such objects as weapons and contraband. See Payton v. New
    Search
  18. and the risk -- to themselves or to preservation of the evidence -- of going to obtain a warrant. See Coolidge v. New
    Search
  19. necessities render it the only practicable means of detecting certain types of crime. See, e.g., United States v. Cortez
    Search
  20. searches is quite different from that protected by its injunction against unreasonable seizures, see Texas v. Brown
    Search
  21. opinions of this Court supports such a distinction, not even the dictum from Justice Stewart's concurrence in Stanley v. Georgia
    Search
  22. prong of the plain view exception to the Warrant Clause. See Coolidge v. New
    Search
  23. The plurality opinion in Coolidge v. New
    Search
  24. In Texas v. Brown
    Search
  25. Id. at 460 U. S. 742 (quoting Carroll v. United
    Search
  26. States, 267 U. S. 132 , 267 U. S. 162 (1925)). See also Texas v. Brown
    Search
  27. objects in plain view). As the Court recognizes, ante at 480 U. S. 326 , the statements in Payton v. New
    Search
  28. the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals, and therefore dissent. Page 480 U. S. 334 In Coolidge v. New
    Search
  29. may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. As another plurality observed in Texas v. Brown
    Search
  30. Ibid. (quoting Coolidge v. New
    Search
  31. of an item and a mere inspection of the item was first suggested by Justice Stewart. In his concurrence in Stanley v. Georgia
    Search
  32. picking up or moving objects for a better view -- require only a reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Marbury
    Search
  33. United States v. Hillyard
    Search
  34. United States v. Wright
    Search
  35. United States v. Ochs
    Search
  36. have applied a reasonable suspicion standard in factual circumstances almost identical to this case. See, e.g., State v. Noll
    Search
  37. State v. Riedinger
    Search
  38. People v. Dorris
    Search
  39. State v. Proctor
    Search
  40. People v. Eddington
    Search
  41. that the item in question is contraband or evidence of a crime. United States v. Place
    Search
  42. U. S. 696 , 462 U. S. 706 Page 480 U. S. 338 (1983). In Delaware v. Prouse
    Search
  43. New Jersey v. T.L
    Search
  44. U. S. 341 (1986). The governmental interests considered include crime prevention and detection. Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  45. Ante at 480 U. S. 327 . See United States v. Place
    Search
  46. was even more transitory and less intrusive than the seizure of luggage from a suspected drug dealer in United States v. Place
    Search
  47. in Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  48. more helpful and accurate in detecting stolen property than simple police recollection of the evidence. Cf. New York v. Class
    Search
  49. of probable cause has been satisfied. Texas v. Brown
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. Hicks
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial